I have had DD's since 1980 , they are not the same dogs that I had 30 to 40 years ago, while I have still had some good DD'S in the last 20 years they do not have the grit of my old dogs, they are not protective either , a stranger can come in my yard and they greet them with a wagging tail, my old dogs would never let a stranger in my yard or around my truck, don't even think about getting your deer out of my truck. Forrest

Harvey, what other stuff do you like to do that prevents you from having a dog? Unless it's traveling out of the country a lot and even then it seems like you could make it work? I mean if I can take two dogs on a canoe camping trip or a pack in trip to the Frank it seems like you could make a dog work? I don't know your situation, so I'm simply speculating...

Eric: If I have a dog, I want to focus on the dog. My wife is now retired and yes, she wants to travel. It’s all the little stuff too when it means leaving the dog home alone when I want to do something for the day or having to get home early from places to feed. Not fair to my wife to always have to be there when I don’t want to. Dog would be in and out of kennels when we want to hit the road for a few days. And the out of state big game hunting trips. Then there’s the fishing and yes, the foreign travel my wife wants to do. We spent a month in New Zealand this year. She wants to do a three week cruise in Europe next year.

Now with my bum leg. Imagine having a six month old pup right now. No idea how long it’ll be till I can walk normal down the sidewalk let alone rough hunting country? I’d say an absolute minimum of six months, probably more like a year...... if ever. Maybe know a little more Monday afternoon when I see the Dr. for the first time since the surgery. I’m not expecting great news.

JTracyII wrote:Four years later what are the trends you all are seeing....

I see some breeds rising in favor and others losing ground, neither of which is because of their quality but rather their promotion coupled with a largely uninformed public. Particularly uninformed in terms of actually getting out and observing dogs while hunting vs using a keyboard. Lots of dogs are going to casual hunters these days, with many of those having very limited access to wild birds.

I see a growing role in Testing in Breeding and Acquisition decisions that concerns me. It is pretty easy to take a decent puppy and pass some Hunt Tests from NA through VC if that is what you are into. Training and testing a dog is a positive, but it falls far short of qualifying a dog for breeding and yet I see an obvious and growing trend that testing is mis-used in that way none the less.

Forrest,

Your observations of the DDs jive with mine but I would have said it was progress. Not arguing just sharing. I also think the DDs have advanced in their coats, pointing instinct and bird work as well as temperament, as you noted from a different perspective. I think they remain the most consistent and strongest performers on average of the Vdogs.

I see a subset of GWPs which are excellent, what I want in a dog, and still considerably better on average than some breeds which are currently more in favor. Their Breeders are hunters and do not engage in the same degree of breed promotion I see going on elsewhere. And I see a mob of poor coated hyper active "Fur Babies" which are easily avoided.

GSPs are a large and popular breed and you can find what you want in them pretty easy no matter what you want. I see some NAVHDA line dogs which are excellent in water and upland, but they fall short of the GWPs and DDs in the blood tracking area on average.

Harvey,

I respect your wrangling over the decision to get a dog or not. Done right it is an enormous responsibility that warrants much forethought. I am wrestling with whether to get another dog or not. I really enjoy raising and training talented puppies and currently hunt upland birds enough that Spud and I could benefit from some bench strength in that area. But the rub comes in relative to Doves, Waterfowl, and Blood Tracking. Two dogs means diminished opportunity for one or both of them in those areas and that bothers me as I think dogs get better the more experience you give them. I have done very well using one Vdog at a time. And I love to hunt big game and do not want to box myself in too much in one area and miss out on another. When SD, ND, MT, IA, MO all report declines in bird numbers it gives me pause as well. I am Thankful/Blessed I can travel and hunt like I do but it is far more taxing than hunting around home on both man and dogs and nothing about my ability to do so is improving with age. So I continue to weigh and wrestle with the notion of a second dog.

It was heartbreaking for me when I got a second dog. Very emotional to leave the house in the morning with the good dog and leave my closest buddy behind. This went on for years, I never got over it. And at my age, I would one day maybe have to sell a dog if I found myself too old to hunt. I certainly don’t think I can hunt Chukars like I used to.

orhunter wrote:It was heartbreaking for me when I got a second dog. Very emotional to leave the house in the morning with the good dog and leave my closest buddy behind. This went on for years, I never got over it. And at my age, I would one day maybe have to sell a dog if I found myself too old to hunt. I certainly don’t think I can hunt Chukars like I used to.

Your travel plans aside...have you thought about putting an eye out for an older dog? Be it from a breeder no longer breeding a female, or a breeder that has to rehome an an adult dog? Or, (dare I say it) a rescue?

I just sent a roughly five year old male off to live with a retired couple. Certainly he could have upland hunted but he's a farm companion and couch surfer now. I've rehomed another 1 year old female that spent her summer pointing game preserve pheasants for the retired Military officers that adopted her. I have now an older fellow (over 10,) his hunting days are over but I've had him a week and had him at training day and he clearly was a hunting dog by his reaction to the birds and guns.

I think if you want to say what sporting breed has improved the most, I think it would be the Irish Setter. By crossing it with the English and creating the Red Setter, they have taken a breed from the edge of sporting extinction to what is today a very nice gun dog once again.

GONEHUNTIN' wrote:I think if you want to say what sporting breed has improved the most, I think it would be the Irish Setter. By crossing it with the English and creating the Red Setter, they have taken a breed from the edge of sporting extinction to what is today a very nice gun dog once again.

Glad to hear that. I had an traditional Irish years ago before I knew better. Never pointed and lacked brains. Even so, something about the Irish personality I liked. I raise PP’s now and have gotten pretty deep, but sometimes the wife and kids bring up getting at least one of another breed. It might have to be a Irish Red Setter one of these days.

orhunter wrote:The reason I mentioned the Brittany is that I just don't see them any more like I used to. Might be nothing more than where I live. Used to be, if you hunted upland in Orygun, you had a Brittany. I did. Now, it's a mix of GSP's and Wirehairs as the top two. Probably the PP is a close third. Don't have any actual statistics, just a gut feeling.

Harvey, my guess is that it is where you live. You know I'm a Brittany guy and I sure don't see any down turn in Brittanys across the country. I've been running in NSTRA trials for nearly 10 years and I think there are more Britts running today than when I started. Certainly no less.

JTracyII wrote:Four years later what are the trends you all are seeing....

I see a growing role in Testing in Breeding and Acquisition decisions that concerns me. It is pretty easy to take a decent puppy and pass some Hunt Tests from NA through VC if that is what you are into. Training and testing a dog is a positive, but it falls far short of qualifying a dog for breeding and yet I see an obvious and growing trend that testing is mis-used in that way none the less.

AG,

I think your right....to me, it seems like there are many breeders simply breeding dogs that test well and not taking into account their abilities in the field. They simply think that breeding two dogs with decent test scores will produce top notch hunting dogs without taking into account their dogs strengths and weaknesses in true hunting conditions when deciding to breed. Granted, dogs that test well will usually make serviceable hunting dogs, but they are not necessarily the best hunting dogs capable of producing the best offspring. Sometimes they are, but not always. Don't get me wrong, testing is valuable and necessary in my mind as it shows the trainability and cooperative traits of a dog, but some intangibles (e.g., range after 2 hours of hunting and mental toughness in cold water conditions, etc.) can't be discerned by testing alone.

orhunter wrote:It was heartbreaking for me when I got a second dog. Very emotional to leave the house in the morning with the good dog and leave my closest buddy behind. This went on for years, I never got over it. And at my age, I would one day maybe have to sell a dog if I found myself too old to hunt. I certainly don’t think I can hunt Chukars like I used to.

I am with you on this one regarding the emotions of leaving the older dog. I went and got a second dog that so far has achieved some of the improvements I wanted over my first and most of these are trainer related, but I am going through what you describe when having to decide to leave my "buddy' at home or not. Worse is my wife lets me know how much he sulks at home when I do it. I decided his going is more important than the success or convenience of the hunt(yah, I get to pull stickers out of his coat for 30 minutes) unless it just will not work but I am finding work arounds more than I initially did.

You never have to tell a dog what time to be home, give them the keys, and they never ask for money.